Got an inquiry out with a distributor on that moss green mountain ascent...I may be able to get one for about $300 more than a new Montana. At that I think its worth it, and I like the green stock.

Got a luggage scale (cool little thing on Amazon, $8) that you can hook to the sling and lift a rifle up to get an exact weight. My 338 weighs 10.38 lbs, and my 270, which I considered much lighter, came in at 9.64 lbs (it has a heavy boyd's stock on it and a heavy bushnell x50 scope). My Savage FXP64 22LR (semi auto) with Bushnell 2-7x32 came in at 7.08 lbs.

By my calculations, with the VX-6, alumina covers, talley lightweight low mounts, and a lightweight sling the Savage LWH will come out to (assuming 5 lbs 12 oz...4 oz heavier than Savage claims) 7 lbs 3 oz. The Kimber MA would come out to 6 lbs 4 oz. After confirming the weight of my 22, I really would like it to come under that, which leaves me at the Kimbers. The Montana, un-modified, would be around 6 lbs 9 oz.

Can't find a weight for the Barrett, and they simply say 5-6 lbs? I may call. But still, I think its going to come in $200 higher than I can get a mountain ascent, and be atleast 1/4 lb heavier at a minimum.

On the accuracy concerns with Kimber, a 1.5" group won't bother me. Its a deer rifle for the woods. I just don't want a 10" group ha.

Unfortunately I have a cataract in my right eye that limits my vision to a corrected 25/20 - I know thats still pretty good, but I have really placed an emphasis on high quality glass, and I can tell a big difference in say VX-2 vs VX-6. And I'm a Leupold fanboy ha. I was definitely considering the 2.5-8x36 VX-3i, but having just put a 3-18x44 VX-6 on my 338 I'd hate to have worse glass on the rifle I'll use 90% of the time I hunt, if that makes any sense whatsoever ha. The VX-6 2-12x42 is only 16.8 oz, while the VX-2 2-7x33 is 9.9 oz and the 2.5-8x36 is 11.4 oz. Thats a lotttt of optics for the ounces.

For instance, your Razor 1.5-8x32 is 13.4 oz - just 3.4 oz lighter than the 2-12x42 VX-6. That is an impressive FOV on that Vortex though...

I agree with you on weight but you should still take a look at that Razor if you can. I think the glass and reticle is actually better than that VX6. I know the eye box is. I love the very generous eye box and FOV on 1.5 for a woods gun. It makes it very easy to get behind and get on a moving target fast.

I do like the illumination and power range on the VX6. It's a good scope. It's just personal preference,because everything is a trade off in some area.

I don't know worse glass is relative. If you are talking about a woods gun you just don't really need all that to shoot a deer. Maybe sheep hunting but around here no way. Consider this I got Schmitt and Benders...but you know what I hunted with most of deer season? A 2.5-8 Leupold VX3 on my woods gun and a Minox HD 5 on what I was food plot hunting with late afternoon. And I didn't need anything more expensive. Hail I got a 35 remington with a $150 RedField on it I deer hunt with. Does everything I need it to do.

The FOV alone is gonna inspire me to look at that one...

And for some reason I just like the idea of the 2.5-8x36, so that is still on the table. That could bring the Savage down under 7lbs, and be pretty cost effective.

Having owned both and all things considered.......
The Vx-3 2.5-8x36 is the finest all around woods/short action rifle scope ever made
The VX-6 2-12x42 is the finest all around scope ever made period.
Leupolds have better eye boxes and faster target acquisition than any other scope ever made IMO

Does it have a heavier reticle than the standard vortex duplex? Heck I can't see the danged thing.

Have you heard how the Barretts shoot or if they will ever make a .280?

I shouldn't judge them by this but I was told by a fella that used to work for them that the only accuracy test the army requires for their 50's is that they shoot a 5 shot 3" group at 100 yards. He said they had to be worked over pretty good before they could actually be used effectively in combat. Whether or not that's true I can't confirm though.
On another note, I just picked this one up from my ffl. 5lbs 11.5 oz scoped. It's a little newer model than my .308 and has a little more texture to the stock. Keeper for sure if I can get it to shoot like I want it to.

I shouldn't judge them by this but I was told by a fella that used to work for them that the only accuracy test the army requires for their 50's is that they shoot a 5 shot 3" group at 100 yards. He said they had to be worked over pretty good before they could actually be used effectively in combat. Whether or not that's true I can't confirm though.
On another note, I just picked this one up from my ffl. 5lbs 11.5 oz scoped. It's a little newer model than my .308 and has a little more texture to the stock. Keeper for sure if I can get it to shoot like I want it to.